Jump to content

Can One Be A Christian Without Accepting The Bible As God's Word


thethinker
 Share

Recommended Posts

>>Is it possible to be a follower of Christ (Christian) and not embrace the God He embraced?

 

To me, thethinker, I guess that would depend on what you mean by a "follower", wouldn't it?

 

Scholars say (and the gospels confirm) that Jesus' central message had to do with the kingdom of God. Is there a way to remove God from that vision without doing harm to its message and context?

 

But if one means incorporating into one's life the humanistic teachings of Jesus (perhaps as Jefferson did), is that a valid way to follow?

 

Or, if it's true that Jesus' own religion came down to, as the gospels say, loving God and loving others, is there a way to remove God from these "commandments" while being true to Jesus?

 

Still others say that Jesus' message was only for his time and audience. I've met Dispensationalists who say that nothing Jesus taught is applicable today because he taught "under the Law" and that was a different covenant. Then I've met still others that say that we don't follow Jesus today because we should, as Jesus seemed to do, find our own path to that which we call God. Jesus' teachings don't apply because we must all discover God (whatever we think or experience God to be) for ourselves and live according to that light.

 

As for me, I think Jesus was a theist. Jews were, to the best of my knowledge, monotheists during Jesus' day, and I don't think he bucked against this. I would even go so far as to say that he seemed to be a supernatural theist, believing that God intervenes in human affairs in response to prayers or due to imposing His will upon humanity. I don't embrace ALL of this, but I do agree with some of Jesus' descriptors of God such as Father, Spirit, or Compassion. So I guess I am "theist-lite".

 

How would you follow Jesus while rejecting his notions or teachings about God?

 

BillM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible to be a follower of Christ (Christian) and not embrace the God He embraced?

 

That all depends on what/who you think is the God that Christ embraced. If we take a literal interpretation of the New Testament we get all sorts of mixed messages about this God. Throw in the OT God and I'd say there is no clear picture of who/what God is.

 

However one outstanding message about God that Christ seemed centred on was one of compassion towards others, social justice, and love. I think that's a God one can embrace whether Christian or other. I think if you use this theme of Christ's to bring that God into your life, and/or you use Christ as your reference point when looking for an example of how to experience this God, then one is for all intents and purposes a follower of Christ embracing the God he embraced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another important consideration to your question, thethinker, is what do YOU mean by "Christ"?

 

Many modern mainline/progressive scholars recognize that there at least two voices of "Jesus" in our gospels. The first is the voice of the historical Jesus, Jesus as he existed in the first century. The second is the voice of Christ, Jesus as he became to the early Church. Though there is no sharp line of demarcation between the two, they are quite different.

 

Many "Jesus scholars" tend to view the "historical Jesus" as a Jewish mystic. In this sense, Jesus was a person who experienced the reality of God in his life in an ongoing basis. And it was out of this reality of experiencing God that he taught and lived. Though he certainly taught about values such as love, forgiveness, mercy, justice, and compassion, these flowed out of his relationship to and with God. So I am not sure how one could separate Jesus, his life and his teachings, from the God that was at the center of his life.

 

The "Christ of faith" is, according to traditional orthodox theology, God himself, the second person of the Trinity. This "Christ" is one with God in essence and substance. And it is out of this deification that he receives worship and is considered to be "very God from very God." So, again, I am not sure how one could separate Christ from God IF Christ IS God, as most of Christianity says.

 

As I've mentioned, some consider Jesus of Nazareth to be a good and wise teacher. With that, I would agree. But I doubt that his goodness and wisdom flowed simply out of human philosophy. I think that he had a real relationship with God that results in his message and his Way of life. It seems to me that it is a "package deal". "Jesus without God" may appeal to some, but I'm not sure how much of "Jesus" would be left after excising everything about God from him, his teachings, and his lifestyle.

 

My 2c

 

BillM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That all depends on what/who you think is the God that Christ embraced.

 

No, it's not at all what/who I "think" or what/who you "think" is the God that Christ embraced. The record shows Christ embraced the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is this God who said, "You shall have no other gods before me."

 

Can one be a Christian without embracing the God that Christ embraced? I am not interested in what anyone "thinks," but only in what the record says.

Edited by thethinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thethinker, wouldn't you agree that no matter what the record may show, we still need to "think" about what it says and, perhaps more importantly, explore the record means by what it says?

 

For instance, while I agree with you that Jesus was in relationship to the God that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob pointed to, Jesus did not seem to embrace the notions found in the Old Testament that God wanted His people to kill neighboring nations or to hate enemies. In fact, some of Jesus' teachings reflect that he even went against some of the beliefs and ordinances that Israel felt were necessary to be acceptable to God. He ate with prostitutes. He let a woman with a blood flow touch him. He fellowshipped with sinners. All of these things were forbidden by the Mosaic code. This doesn't at all mean that Jesus was for throwing out the Hebrew scriptures. But he did seem to think that God was known more through compassion than in trying to follow a holiness code.

 

Add to this that the record is really "records" and they are not monolithic in their testimony. People back then, just like today, had different ideas about things and discussed their different views in community, sometimes arguing with one another (like Paul and James or Paul and Peter). As wonderful as the record is, it often presents quite a wide range of understandings and interpretations. So, IMO, we can't simply look at what the record says. That is a tempting path as it makes some things easier. But we must bring our best tools to studying the scriptures and share our ideas and interpretations with one another so that we don't become idiosyncratic in our views.

 

I agree that God was a present reality for Jesus. But I also don't think that Jesus embraced every view of God put forth in the Hebrew scriptures. I sense that he held to what was good and let the rest go. I endeavor to do the same.

 

BillM

Edited by BillM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thethinker, wouldn't you agree that no matter what the record may show, we still need to "think" about what it says and, perhaps more importantly, explore the record means by what it says?

 

Yes we need to "think" about what the record says. But you have not yet given me a specific word from the record to work with. You have expressed only what you think.

 

For instance, while I agree with you that Jesus was in relationship to the God that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob pointed to, Jesus did not seem to embrace the notions found in the Old Testament that God wanted His people to kill neighboring nations or to hate enemies. In fact, some of Jesus' teachings reflect that he even went against some of the beliefs and ordinances that Israel felt were necessary to be acceptable to God. He ate with prostitutes. He let a woman with a blood flow touch him. He fellowshipped with sinners. All of these things were forbidden by the Mosaic code. This doesn't at all mean that Jesus was for throwing out the Hebrew scriptures. But he did seem to think that God was known more through compassion than in trying to follow a holiness code.

 

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob PRE-DATED the Mosaic code. Therefore, for Jesus to embrace the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would not imply that He He embraced a God that was not compassionate. In fact, the new testament authors associate Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with nothing but promises.

 

Jesus did not "throw out" the Hebrew scriptures. He FULFILLED them for the scriptures were all about Him (Luke 24).

Edited by thethinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can one be a Christian without embracing the God that Christ embraced? I am not interested in what anyone "thinks," but only in what the record says.

thethinker,

With all due respect for your view stated here, i would ask you that if you are "not interested in what anyone thinks concerning your question but only what the record says" then may i ask, Why are you here on this site? Hopefully not to just tell people here what the record says as most here are already familiar in depth what the record says and do not necessarily accept it as God's literal inerrant Word or interpret it the same as everyone else.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the thinker,

 

Also, it has been suggested in another thread by PaulS that you familiarize yourself with the 8 points of Progressive Christianity since you are interested in learning what it is.. If you agree in principle to the 8 points you are allowed to post in this particular forum (Progressive Christianity) Otherwise you are limited to and most welcome in the other individual forums here. Please review the guidelines of each forum before posting.

 

Also HERE is a pinned thread by members of what Progressive Christianity is to them which may help if you are curious

 

Thanks for your cooperation,

JosephM(as Moderator)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No, it's not at all what/who I "think" or what/who you "think" is the God that Christ embraced. The record shows Christ embraced the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is this God who said, "You shall have no other gods before me."

 

Can one be a Christian without embracing the God that Christ embraced? I am not interested in what anyone "thinks," but only in what the record says.

 

I beg to differ. Did Jesus believe the God who commanded the Israelites to slaughter men, women, and children in acts of genocide stated on about a dozen different occasions, also think this was the identical God he was worshipping who he proclaimed as love and compassion and forgiveness? I think not, but a narrow view of the written word might indicate so.

 

If you are only interested in the 'record' as you interpret it, then I'm not sure i have much to add to my answers.

 

I call myself a Christian and a follower of Christ, because I use what I believe was Christ's message to us about God and ourselves, as a way to live my life. I do not think for a second that the record, written by men, is accurate in all cases, even to the extent that, I think some men have even written interpretations of God that are contrary to other biblical authors. I certainly think the bible is far, far from infallible and I especially think that it should not be read as God's word as though God has given a final word on life and living.

 

But then, that's just me who has been on both sides of the fence - committed, born-again Christian, and agnostic atheist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Jesus did not "throw out" the Hebrew scriptures. He FULFILLED them for the scriptures were all about Him (Luke 24).

 

I can't disagree with you more, TT. IMO, not only has the description of Jesus and his activities been written in a fashion to make it seem like he was the fulfilment of prophecy, rather than them being an accurate record of such fulfilment, but not even all the alleged prophecy of a Messiah was fulfilled by Christ.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thethinker,

With all due respect for your view stated here, i would ask you that if you are "not interested in what anyone thinks concerning your question but only what the record says" then may i ask, Why are you here on this site? Hopefully not to just tell people here what the record says as most here are already familiar in depth what the record says and do not necessarily accept it as God's literal inerrant Word or interpret it the same as everyone else.

 

Joseph

 

I assumed that Progressive Christianity was still Christianity which is based exclusively on the record.

 

The 8 points say nothing about the Bible being rejected as God's word by PC. I just assumed, that all who go by the name "Christian" accept the Bible as God's word. This is why I said, "I don't want what anyone thinks." Christians always base what they think on the Bible and I thought that PC was Christian and therefore expected certain things.

 

Why the pretense? If you do not accept the Bible you are not Christian. So just come right out and say that you are not Christian? I don't get it. I do NOT have a problem with you having another way. Just don't call it the Christian way.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please note your discrepancy. First you said,

 

I beg to differ. Did Jesus believe the God who commanded the Israelites to slaughter men, women, and children in acts of genocide stated on about a dozen different occasions, also think this was the identical God he was worshipping who he proclaimed as love and compassion and forgiveness?

 

Then you said:

 

I call myself a Christian and a follower of Christ, because I use what I believe was Christ's message to us about God and ourselves, as a way to live my life.

 

See the confusion? You rhetorically ask if Jesus believed in the uncompassionate God who commanded the Israelites to exterminate men, women and children. Your implied answer was yes. Then you say that you are a Christian because you use what you believe Jesus taught us about God and ourselves. Problem: If Jesus believed in the mean God, then how can you maintain that Jesus gleaned good things about God for you to live by? And why would you NOT believe in the same God Jesus believed in if He taught things about Him for you to use in your life?

 

The God of Jesus was also the god of His disciples. Jesus told His disciples, "I go to my God and your God." I maintain that it was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of promise. This God PRE-DATED Moses.

 

Should your God be different from the God of Jesus' disciples?

 

I think your confusion comes from your having been on the side of conservative Chriatianity which has grossly misrperesented the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

After this post I will have to review the guidelines and take this topic somethere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tinythinker,

 

I moved your comments here as a more approprite area for such a discussion. Perhaps according to your definition and some others the use of the word Christian is not appropriate to many of the views on this site. That would be your opinion which is allowed freedom of expression here and you may ask others and challenge them on why they believe it is appropriate by logic or reasoning or otherwise.. However, we do ask all participants to at all times be respectful of different views without personal attacks or insults . With that in mind, ask away and present any arguments you may have within the guidelines of good etiquette.

 

Thanks in advance,

JosephM(as Moderator)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assumed that Progressive Christianity was still Christianity which is based exclusively on the record.

 

The 8 points say nothing about the Bible being rejected as God's word by PC. I just assumed, that all who go by the name "Christian" accept the Bible as God's word. This is why I said, "I don't want what anyone thinks." Christians always base what they think on the Bible and I thought that PC was Christian and therefore expected certain things.

 

Why the pretense? If you do not accept the Bible you are not Christian. So just come right out and say that you are not Christian? I don't get it. I do NOT have a problem with you having another way. Just don't call it the Christian way.

 

Hi thethinker,

 

Your thoughts expressed are indeed not uncommon for people new to Progressive Christianity. From readings both in the NT and historical writers i have found that the first ones who were called Christians were basically followers of the teachings of Jesus rather than a Bible. I do not find any reference to accepting the Bible as it exists today as the Word of God that makes it a requirement to be considered a Christian.

 

It seems to me that Jesus's central message from a number of sources was centered on Love rather than a religion. And to be centered in Love was to be centered in Christ ( the anointing of God). hence he/she who follows Love is in effect anointed (or smeared together with God) even as Jesus is recorded being One with God. Now i speak for myself here and not Progressive Christianity because we have no set dogma or beliefs other than the principles in the 8 points.

 

Since we have found an approach to God (Love) through the teachings of Jesus, we have as much a right as anyone to self label ourselves as Christian followers, howbeit, not with the same definition as more fundamental Christian churches might apply. I in particular and possibly others have found that dogma and church doctrine of those more fundamentally inclined is sometimes actually contrary to Love. But that is just my personal view and i respect your right to a different conclusion..

 

Joseph (as member)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph,

 

>>From readings both in the NT and historical writers i have found that the first ones who were called Christians were basically followers of the teachings of Jesus rather than a Bible...It seems to me that Jesus's central message from a number of sources was centered on Love rather than a religion...Since we have found an approach to God (Love) through the teachings of Jesus, we have as much a right as anyone to self label ourselves as Christian followers, howbeit, not with the same definition as more fundamental Christian churches might apply.

 

I find this helpful. I can't rate your post, so I just wanted to say 'thank you'.

 

Christianity, in our time, is such a broad and narrow religion.

 

It is so broad in that it encompasses Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and 38,000 different Protestant denominations, and while there are similarities between these different sects, there are also enough differences that they don't often worship or work together. They don't all believe the same things about their Christianity or practice it the same way.

 

And it is narrow in that, for better or worse, there is often the mindset that it is only Christians that go to heaven and everyone else goes to hell.

 

With so much "eternal" weight given to the term "Christian" and "Christianity", it is little wonder that many of us wonder what it is to be a "true" Christian or to want to know what it means to be a "Christian". So it is, IMO, very natural for us (and newcomers to Progressive Christianity) to wonder what it means to be a progressive Christian or what progressive Christianity believes.

 

And what can sound very freeing to many of us in the 8 Points, because we don't define "Christian", can sound very loosey-goosey to others. I appreciate that progressive Christianity, whatever it is and means, doesn't focus on "who is in and who is out", who is saved, and who is not. That is not our purpose, as I understand it. To me, our purpose, if we have one, is to all move together toward the Love that you speak of. And as we do, though our specific beliefs may differ, we find a similarity in heart. The focus is not so much on defining "Christian" or "Christianity", but on experiencing Love, which is certainly larger than our religious labels.

 

So I appreciate that this form of Christianity does not take the approach of, "You have to be like us". Rather, it allows us to be who we are, leaves the labels as our personal choice, and just invites us to share our journeys in discovering the Love that we call God or the God that we call Love in personal, transforming ways.

 

BillM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I assumed that Progressive Christianity was still Christianity which is based exclusively on the record.

 

The 8 points say nothing about the Bible being rejected as God's word by PC. I just assumed, that all who go by the name "Christian" accept the Bible as God's word. This is why I said, "I don't want what anyone thinks." Christians always base what they think on the Bible and I thought that PC was Christian and therefore expected certain things.

 

Why the pretense? If you do not accept the Bible you are not Christian. So just come right out and say that you are not Christian? I don't get it. I do NOT have a problem with you having another way. Just don't call it the Christian way.

 

As it's said, "don't assume as it will make an ass out of you and me"!

 

I think I have made it clear by now that many Christians do not accept the bible as God's word. Unfortunately, some Christians take offence to that, but that can't be helped.

 

Your expectations and generalisations that 'Christians' base what they think on the bible is not wrong, it's just that many Christians interpret the bible differently than other Christians (nothing new there hence he hundreds of different denominations of Christians).

 

There is no pretence and one certainly can be a Christian without 'accepting' the bible. The acceptance is simply that the bible was written by people that had a particular interpretation of God - like all humans, it doesn't mean that hey had it 100% right all the time.

 

You are entitled to disagree but fortunately you do not 'own' Christianity and your narrow view/definition has no more seniority than mine. Subsequently I will call myself a Christian even if people like you do not agree.

 

It is a Christian way, albeit different to the Christian way you insist others follow.

Edited by PaulS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the pretense? If you do not accept the Bible you are not Christian. So just come right out and say that you are not Christian? I don't get it. I do NOT have a problem with you having another way. Just don't call it the Christian way.

 

thethinker

 

On this board it is not acceptable to say that someone is not Christian - or to label anyone - according to YOUR definition or rule. It is one of our guidelines.

 

Paul has said it as I might have.

 

Dutch

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thethinker

 

please read this post. I should have sent you a welcome message which includes this reference. I apologize.

 

http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1560-just-what-is-an-uncompassionate-post/

 

Notice one example of what is not acceptable

 

In my opinion you are not a Christian as you suppose.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From readings both in the NT and historical writers i have found that the first ones who were called Christians were basically followers of the teachings of Jesus rather than a Bible. I do not find any reference to accepting the Bible as it exists today as the Word of God that makes it a requirement to be considered a Christian.

 

Actually the first Christians came to faith in Christ because the apostles preached how the [Hebrew] Scriptures testified of the Christ. Philip preached Christ to the Ethiopian from Isaiah. Paul even said to Timothy, "You have known the holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

 

I do not find any reference to accepting the Bible as it exists today as the Word of God that makes it a requirement to be considered a Christian.

 

But you just invoked the NT which says that the first Christians became followers of Christ as the direct result of the preaching of the apostles from the Hebrew Scriptures. They said that that the Hebrew scrriptures were about Christ. Therefore, the NT which you have invoked upholds the Hebrew scriptures.

 

Since we have found an approach to God (Love) through the teachings of Jesus, we have as much a right as anyone to self label ourselves as Christian followers, howbeit, not with the same definition as more fundamental Christian churches might apply.

 

You correctly invoke the teachings of Jesus. Yet He taught the spirit of the Hebrew scriptures. Therefore, Jesus validated the Hebrew scriptures but with the life giving meaning. I would not call myself a Christian if I reject the scriptures anymore than I should call myself a Muslim if I reject the Quran. Yet there is a lot more to being a Christian than accepting the scriptures.

 

I in particular and possibly others have found that dogma and church doctrine of those more fundamentally inclined is sometimes actually contrary to Love.

 

I am with you on this point friend! I was just banned for one day from a hardcore Christian Right forum that has both hardcore fundamentalists and liberal Christians. They even have unbelieving members. Well, those on the right were saying that all sexually immoral people should be put to death. But an athiest spoke as if he was a believer and showed them that Christ did not condemn the woman taken in adultery. Then said, "Jesus set the bar for us." I posted a "thumbs up" to the athiest saying, "I never agree with you, but you're right on this one."

 

I was not supporting his athiest beliefs. I was just acknowledging that he was right on a certain point. But I was punished for that by a member who "neg repped" me. He has a lot of reputation power and so I lost a lot of well earned reputation points. His comment said with the neg rep said, "repent." He publically called me a "sexual pervert." I was shocked! I need to "repent' because I affirm to an athiest that he spoke a truth which should be a given by all true Christians? I am a sexual pervert because I affirm that we should not judge others?

 

Then I publically took him to task for it and questioned that he was a true friend of God and was banned for one day to cool off. But I decided that I will not go back to a forum that claims to be Christian and yet punishes someone for saying that Christ set the bar for us on the matter of not passing judgment upon others.

 

Well, I have many preparations for the Superbowl party. Later!

Edited by thethinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you just invoked the NT which says that the first Christians became followers of Christ as the direct result of the preaching of the apostles from the Hebrew Scriptures. They said that that the Hebrew scrriptures were about Christ. Therefore, the NT which you have invoked upholds the Hebrew scriptures.

 

Hi the thinker,

i BELIEVE I have invoked nothing but my own opinion or view regardless of my references.. One can study other historical documents and come to the same conclusion. I place no real authority in the NT but i do find it a useful and inspired writing worthy of reading and study as i also find of other books..

Joseph

Edited by JosephM
added words
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ made the remark to his jewish audience that none of them nor their ancestors had ever seen God. I don't think this means a vision or a theophany or something, it's a term for knowing God, knowing who He is, and understanding Him. This basically relegates the jewish religion to a religion that had sought God - but just like the pagans, they didn't really find Him. I'm not sure what this makes of the Israelite's treck through the desert, but Jesus' words stand, the Israelites hadn't seen God yet.

 

Much of what is repugnant to moderns about the christian worldview is rooted in the law-scriptures. Apart from them there isn't much that could be considered bad, and even the law had some light in it, for example the 10 commandments that I find really good for society building. I don't think we could live well together if we stole, lied, murdered, robbed each other of our spouses, etc.

 

I'm really baffled as to what exactly these Israelites experienced in Egypt, at Sinaii and in the desert. The way God acts in it is only laudable if we assume an Egypt that was really lost in magic and occultism (and that magic and occultism are real dealings with an evil devil and with demons). It is only interesting if justice objectively demands that homosexuality be outlawed because it's an abomination. If justice doesn't demand it, it's only God's preference, and I don't think this would somehow make it necessary to force it on us as a religious law.

 

I suppose the only way to get to a God who can be our God, to get a God who is better than us in a clearly visible way, is to reject some of the bible. Jesus gave us a beginning, that loving the sinner is better than destroying him, that being merciful to the suffering is something that pleases God, that salvation doesn't depend on man and instead on God and that He makes it freely available for all. But we shouldn't go back to what was before Jesus. Either the scriptures of these times are incomplete or inaccurate, or mankind was so different from now that we might have issues understanding how God just did what He could with a mankind that wanted wars, animal sacrifices, harsh laws to protect them from anarchy, and so on.

 

That's what my mother is betting on in regards to the bible, that it's a book from ancient times and that we have better societies now. Jesus gives acceptable teachings for us, Moses really doesn't. Not if we want to embrace an inclusive ethics of salvation for all, which is really what God is after in Christ, I want to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the Bible to be a conversation among a number of voices. The primary question is "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Or "why is there evil?" The Hebrew's notion of God changes as history buffets them. There is evidence of polytheistic beliefs in the beginning, for example. I think as far as the texts are concerned Jesus words about God are part of the evolution of our concept of God. Jesus could not say what he does without the OT. While we can say that our - or Jesus's - understanding of God is very different, I think, we can't say that the OT texts are not part the path that leads to us.

 

Dutch

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible to be a follower of Christ (Christian) and not embrace the God He embraced?

 

If that were the case (embracing the G-d of Jesus); then you would be Jewish and not Christian.

 

Reading through the subsequent posts, however, I discover that what you really mean is:

 

Can one be a Christian without accepting the modern Christian (Paul's version) Biblical worldview?

 

So, there are two answers:

 

1. From your perspective; no.

 

2. From those who embrace the Jesus movement that took place within the apostolic JEWISH church of the first two decades after the death of Jesus; yes.

 

NORM

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service